Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

Pages: (527) < ... 40 41 42 43 44 [45] 46 47 48 49 50 ... >

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2014,15:31    Quote (Driver @ Aug. 07 2014,15:06) Silver Asiatic forgets that ID is a scientific theory:   Quote True, once we reduce human beings to a biological perspective alone, then humans are apes. Perhaps we can look forward to reading binning the UD magnum opus On The Theology Of Phylogenetics, weighing in at an impressive 3 million words of equivocation and irrelevance. Uh, at the risk of asking a silly question, but if humans are apes from a biological perspective, and "humans are apes" is a statement about biological classification, then what exactly was the question there?

Driver Posts: 649 Joined: June 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2014,15:52    Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 07 2014,20:31) Quote (Driver @ Aug. 07 2014,15:06) Silver Asiatic forgets that ID is a scientific theory:     Quote True, once we reduce human beings to a biological perspective alone, then humans are apes. Perhaps we can look forward to reading binning the UD magnum opus On The Theology Of Phylogenetics, weighing in at an impressive 3 million words of equivocation and irrelevance. Uh, at the risk of asking a silly question, but if humans are apes from a biological perspective, and "humans are apes" is a statement about biological classification, then what exactly was the question there? That's just "evolutionary reductionism". Apparently. -------------- Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray [A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2014,16:31    http://www.kurzweilai.net/ask-ray....f-being -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2014,19:01    gordon davisson: Quote Take the 98% similarity figure as an example: one of the basic principles of science is that you must follow the evidence. If the evidence supports the 98% figure, and that conflicts with your intuition, then you either have to throw that intuition into the trash bin, or stop claiming to be doing science. Dense O'Leary: Quote No. Absolutely not. One should never discard intuitions formed from experience, especially about vast claims. Chimpanzees are so obviously unlike humans – in any way that matters – that claimed huge similarities only cast doubt on genetic science. Genetic science is likely generally true but needs to be reformed and put in better, more realistic, less theory-laden hands. In any event, today, vast corruption reigns in science findings. There is no reason to believe anything that contradicts carefully considered experience, simply because the claim appeared in a science journal. Who cares about supposed scientific 'fact'? I feel like it's wrong! linky

Woodbine Posts: 1218 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2014,19:33    Quote Genetic science is likely generally true but needs to be reformed and put in better, more realistic, less theory-laden hands. Well there's nobody less 'theory-laden' than the ID crowd, Denyse.

Texas Teach Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2014,19:39    Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 07 2014,19:01) gordon davisson: Quote Take the 98% similarity figure as an example: one of the basic principles of science is that you must follow the evidence. If the evidence supports the 98% figure, and that conflicts with your intuition, then you either have to throw that intuition into the trash bin, or stop claiming to be doing science. Dense O'Leary: Quote No. Absolutely not. One should never discard intuitions formed from experience, especially about vast claims. Chimpanzees are so obviously unlike humans – in any way that matters – that claimed huge similarities only cast doubt on genetic science. Genetic science is likely generally true but needs to be reformed and put in better, more realistic, less theory-laden hands. In any event, today, vast corruption reigns in science findings. There is no reason to believe anything that contradicts carefully considered experience, simply because the claim appeared in a science journal. Who cares about supposed scientific 'fact'? I feel like it's wrong! linky I'd be very interested to know how much experience Dense has with actual chimps. I vaguely recall our old chew toy AFDave admitting to not really knowing anything about chimps after make all sorts of claims of dissimilarity. I won't claim to be an expert, but I've actually tagged along with my wife's classes to a chimpanzee retirement center to do observational research, and you simply can't make those kind of claims after really watching chimps. -------------- "Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr "I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2014,19:45    Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 07 2014,17:01) gordon davisson: Quote Take the 98% similarity figure as an example: one of the basic principles of science is that you must follow the evidence. If the evidence supports the 98% figure, and that conflicts with your intuition, then you either have to throw that intuition into the trash bin, or stop claiming to be doing science. Dense O'Leary: Quote No. Absolutely not. One should never discard intuitions formed from experience, especially about vast claims. Chimpanzees are so obviously unlike humans – in any way that matters – that claimed huge similarities only cast doubt on genetic science. Genetic science is likely generally true but needs to be reformed and put in better, more realistic, less theory-laden hands. In any event, today, vast corruption reigns in science findings. There is no reason to believe anything that contradicts carefully considered experience, simply because the claim appeared in a science journal. Who cares about supposed scientific 'fact'? I feel like it's wrong! linky She's feeling attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture, and wants someone to stand up to the experts. (head desk) -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2014,19:57    Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 07 2014,19:01) gordon davisson:   Quote Take the 98% similarity figure as an example: one of the basic principles of science is that you must follow the evidence. If the evidence supports the 98% figure, and that conflicts with your intuition, then you either have to throw that intuition into the trash bin, or stop claiming to be doing science. Dense O'Leary:   Quote No. Absolutely not. One should never discard intuitions formed from experience, especially about vast claims. Chimpanzees are so obviously unlike humans – in any way that matters – that claimed huge similarities only cast doubt on genetic science. Genetic science is likely generally true but needs to be reformed and put in better, more realistic, less theory-laden hands. In any event, today, vast corruption reigns in science findings. There is no reason to believe anything that contradicts carefully considered experience, simply because the claim appeared in a science journal. Who cares about supposed scientific 'fact'? I feel like it's wrong! linky Denyse O'Leary: Pope of All Science.   If the evidence contradicts her intuition, too bad for the evidence. Write that down.

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2014,22:13    Re "Chimpanzees are so obviously unlike humans - in any way that matters" Did anybody ask exactly what major body parts are supposedly present in one of the two species that aren't present in the other? Or failing that, some parts present in both but so different as to have entirely different functions? Not merely proportions of the same parts that are (or can be) mostly still used for pretty much the same things, but something actually so different that it could reasonably be called "unlike". Heck, to find a related species with body part we don't (usually) have, I'd have to go all the way back to monkeys with tails. (Although even there, humans have a vestigial tail that can cause lifelong recurring problems if somebody falls and breaks it while at a skating rink.) Henry

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2014,22:30    Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 07 2014,19:01) gordon davisson: Quote Take the 98% similarity figure as an example: one of the basic principles of science is that you must follow the evidence. If the evidence supports the 98% figure, and that conflicts with your intuition, then you either have to throw that intuition into the trash bin, or stop claiming to be doing science. Dense O'Leary: Quote No. Absolutely not. One should never discard intuitions formed from experience, especially about vast claims. Chimpanzees are so obviously unlike humans – in any way that matters – that claimed huge similarities only cast doubt on genetic science. Genetic science is likely generally true but needs to be reformed and put in better, more realistic, less theory-laden hands. In any event, today, vast corruption reigns in science findings. There is no reason to believe anything that contradicts carefully considered experience, simply because the claim appeared in a science journal. Who cares about supposed scientific 'fact'? I feel like it's wrong! linky So, to Dense, the sun really does orbit the earth? -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2014,00:23    Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 08 2014,06:30) Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 07 2014,19:01) gordon davisson:   Quote Take the 98% similarity figure as an example: one of the basic principles of science is that you must follow the evidence. If the evidence supports the 98% figure, and that conflicts with your intuition, then you either have to throw that intuition into the trash bin, or stop claiming to be doing science. Dense O'Leary:   Quote No. Absolutely not. One should never discard intuitions formed from experience, especially about vast claims. Chimpanzees are so obviously unlike humans – in any way that matters – that claimed huge similarities only cast doubt on genetic science. Genetic science is likely generally true but needs to be reformed and put in better, more realistic, less theory-laden hands. In any event, today, vast corruption reigns in science findings. There is no reason to believe anything that contradicts carefully considered experience, simply because the claim appeared in a science journal. Who cares about supposed scientific 'fact'? I feel like it's wrong! linky So, to Dense, the sun really does orbit the earth? Yep when intuition meets Creationism we call that stupidity. -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

KCdgw Posts: 376 Joined: Sep. 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2014,08:38    Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 07 2014,22:13) Re "Chimpanzees are so obviously unlike humans - in any way that matters" Did anybody ask exactly what major body parts are supposedly present in one of the two species that aren't present in the other? Or failing that, some parts present in both but so different as to have entirely different functions? Not merely proportions of the same parts that are (or can be) mostly still used for pretty much the same things, but something actually so different that it could reasonably be called "unlike". Heck, to find a related species with body part we don't (usually) have, I'd have to go all the way back to monkeys with tails. (Although even there, humans have a vestigial tail that can cause lifelong recurring problems if somebody falls and breaks it while at a skating rink.) Henry Indeed. "Jerry" over in UD once stated that it took incredible amounts of new information to produce macroevolutionary change  at the level of new genera (I think "new genera" was his example). So I upped the ante to families by asking what huge differential in information there was between squirrels and gophers.   I don't remember jerry's exact response, but I do recall the grinding noise of goalposts being shifted. Edited by KCdgw on Aug. 08 2014,08:40 -------------- Those who know the truth are not equal to those who love it-- Confucius

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2014,08:52    Quote (KCdgw @ Aug. 08 2014,16:38) Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 07 2014,22:13) Re "Chimpanzees are so obviously unlike humans - in any way that matters" Did anybody ask exactly what major body parts are supposedly present in one of the two species that aren't present in the other? Or failing that, some parts present in both but so different as to have entirely different functions? Not merely proportions of the same parts that are (or can be) mostly still used for pretty much the same things, but something actually so different that it could reasonably be called "unlike". Heck, to find a related species with body part we don't (usually) have, I'd have to go all the way back to monkeys with tails. (Although even there, humans have a vestigial tail that can cause lifelong recurring problems if somebody falls and breaks it while at a skating rink.) Henry Indeed. "Jerry" over in UD once stated that it took incredible amounts of new information to produce macroevolutionary change  at the level of new genera (I think "new genera" was his example). So I upped the ante to families by asking what huge differential in information there was between squirrels and gophers.   I don't remember jerry's exact response, but I do recall the grinding noise of goalposts being shifted. Orwell that's obvious gophers don't have a 'q' and neither do creationists. -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2014,10:04    Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 07 2014,18:01) gordon davisson: Quote Take the 98% similarity figure as an example: one of the basic principles of science is that you must follow the evidence. If the evidence supports the 98% figure, and that conflicts with your intuition, then you either have to throw that intuition into the trash bin, or stop claiming to be doing science. Dense O'Leary: Quote No. Absolutely not. One should never discard intuitions formed from experience, especially about vast claims. Chimpanzees are so obviously unlike humans – in any way that matters – that claimed huge similarities only cast doubt on genetic science. Genetic science is likely generally true but needs to be reformed and put in better, more realistic, less theory-laden hands. In any event, today, vast corruption reigns in science findings. There is no reason to believe anything that contradicts carefully considered experience, simply because the claim appeared in a science journal. Who cares about supposed scientific 'fact'? I feel like it's wrong! linky Feelings... Nothing more than feelings...

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2014,10:35    Quote (Texas Teach @ Aug. 07 2014,20:39) Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 07 2014,19:01) gordon davisson:   Quote Take the 98% similarity figure as an example: one of the basic principles of science is that you must follow the evidence. If the evidence supports the 98% figure, and that conflicts with your intuition, then you either have to throw that intuition into the trash bin, or stop claiming to be doing science. Dense O'Leary:   Quote No. Absolutely not. One should never discard intuitions formed from experience, especially about vast claims. Chimpanzees are so obviously unlike humans – in any way that matters – that claimed huge similarities only cast doubt on genetic science. Genetic science is likely generally true but needs to be reformed and put in better, more realistic, less theory-laden hands. In any event, today, vast corruption reigns in science findings. There is no reason to believe anything that contradicts carefully considered experience, simply because the claim appeared in a science journal. Who cares about supposed scientific 'fact'? I feel like it's wrong! linky I'd be very interested to know how much experience Dense has with actual chimps. I vaguely recall our old chew toy AFDave admitting to not really knowing anything about chimps after make all sorts of claims of dissimilarity. I won't claim to be an expert, but I've actually tagged along with my wife's classes to a chimpanzee retirement center to do observational research, and you simply can't make those kind of claims after really watching chimps. I've got a long boring story about a trip to the ashboro zoo and a teenage male chimp perceiving me as a competitor and trying to drive me off, but not the elementary school kids surrounding me. In short, the chimp was better at telling we were related, than Dense O'Leary is.

Kantian Naturalist Posts: 72 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2014,10:53    There are two rules of ID: (1) always follow the evidence wherever it leads (unlike those dogmatic materialists with their selective hyperskepticism); (2) if the evidence conflicts with your intuitions (i..e. makes you uncomfortable), ignore the evidence.

Driver Posts: 649 Joined: June 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2014,11:53    One of Dense's misconceptions is that she believes that the claim '98% similar genetically' is equivalent to '98% similar (phenotypically and culturally).' -------------- Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray [A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

REC Posts: 638 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2014,15:57    Ahh....I see VJTorley's endgame with Fesser now. He thinks a signature like "Yahweh did it" HAS been found. ....in the form of the god-awful paper by some Kazakhstani numerologists: http://arxiv.org/ftp........739.pdf Take the codon table, play around with lumping and splitting amino acids, sum the number of protons and neutrons in their side chains, divide by *37* and for some groupings, the result is ~3,4,5.   Magic!!! But only if: 1) You use only the non-standard genetic code of some odd ciliate (one of dozens of variants). 2)* To get the count right, you arbitrarily use non-physiological forms of amino acids that cannot simultaneously exist at the same time to (some exist only below pH 1, some only above 13). Use whatever resonance form (including incorrect ones) suits your needs. 3)* Failing that, just make up amino acid structures. (The otherwise intact tryptophan in 7b lacks a H on the indole N). Nope. No way. Not a thing. 4) Think the number 37 is !magic! Seriously!?! *And remember, the whole 'code' come from summing atoms. Get close, leave a few off here, a few off there.... http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-509963 Edited by REC on Aug. 08 2014,16:23

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2014,17:18    Quote (REC @ Aug. 08 2014,13:57) Take the codon table, play around with lumping and splitting amino acids, sum the number of protons and neutrons in their side chains, divide by *37* and for some groupings, the result is ~3,4,5.   If that was 42, they might be onto something. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Driver Posts: 649 Joined: June 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2014,18:37    Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 08 2014,22:18) Quote (REC @ Aug. 08 2014,13:57) Take the codon table, play around with lumping and splitting amino acids, sum the number of protons and neutrons in their side chains, divide by *37* and for some groupings, the result is ~3,4,5.   If that was 42, they might be onto something. 42 rules of cricket *taps side of nose. -------------- Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray [A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

Amadan Posts: 1337 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 09 2014,11:11    Quote (Driver @ Aug. 09 2014,00:37) Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 08 2014,22:18) Quote (REC @ Aug. 08 2014,13:57) Take the codon table, play around with lumping and splitting amino acids, sum the number of protons and neutrons in their side chains, divide by *37* and for some groupings, the result is ~3,4,5.   If that was 42, they might be onto something. 42 rules of cricket *taps side of nose. You mean 'Krikkit'. -------------- "People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011 JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

REC Posts: 638 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2014,09:24    VJTorley, without a hint of irony: Quote Keith Blanchard doesn’t have a science degree. His LinkedIn profile lists him as having a two year tech degree in Electronic Technology, which he obtained in 1975. Let us freely grant that the man’s skill set looks quite impressive. Nevertheless, the fact remains that a man without a science degree has no place writing an article on evolution in a popular online magazine like The Week. It’s simply presumptuous.

Ptaylor Posts: 1180 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2014,14:58    Quote (REC @ Aug. 11 2014,02:24) VJTorley, without a hint of irony:   Quote Keith Blanchard doesn’t have a science degree. His LinkedIn profile lists him as having a two year tech degree in Electronic Technology, which he obtained in 1975. Let us freely grant that the man’s skill set looks quite impressive. Nevertheless, the fact remains that a man without a science degree has no place writing an article on evolution in a popular online magazine like The Week. It’s simply presumptuous. Also noted by Larry Moran, here. -------------- We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.” -PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2014,22:34    Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 10 2014,14:58) Quote (REC @ Aug. 11 2014,02:24) VJTorley, without a hint of irony:     Quote Keith Blanchard doesn’t have a science degree. His LinkedIn profile lists him as having a two year tech degree in Electronic Technology, which he obtained in 1975. Let us freely grant that the man’s skill set looks quite impressive. Nevertheless, the fact remains that a man without a science degree has no place writing an article on evolution in a popular online magazine like The Week. It’s simply presumptuous. Also noted by Larry Moran, here. I see GaGa popped up and put his foot in his mouth. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2014,11:15    Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 10 2014,23:34) Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 10 2014,14:58) Quote (REC @ Aug. 11 2014,02:24) VJTorley, without a hint of irony:     Quote Keith Blanchard doesn’t have a science degree. His LinkedIn profile lists him as having a two year tech degree in Electronic Technology, which he obtained in 1975. Let us freely grant that the man’s skill set looks quite impressive. Nevertheless, the fact remains that a man without a science degree has no place writing an article on evolution in a popular online magazine like The Week. It’s simply presumptuous. Also noted by Larry Moran, here. I see GaGa popped up and put his foot in his mouth. And then Byers shows up, to begin the process of jack-hammering the bottom of the barrel.

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2014,12:08    Georgi Marinov has a good comment on that thread:   Quote This has been commented on many times in the past, including, I think by you. But it is worth repeating - if someone has more than degree of the same rank, especially PhDs, most of the time something is really fishy... Real scientists do research, to which jumping through all the procedural hoops one has to overcome to get one more PhD is only a hindrance. Most of the top PhD programs in the sciences do not admit people who already have a PhD, and for a very good reason.  But I guess having more than one PhD or some other degree looks good in the eyes of people outside of science who don't understand how things really work, Which is why there is such an unusual concentration of such people among creationists...

Soapy Sam Posts: 659 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2014,12:20    Quote (REC @ Aug. 08 2014,21:57) 4) Think the number 37 is !magic! Seriously!?! Funny thing, my dad, a fairly down-to-earth guy in many ways, became obsessed by the number 37. A piece of paper came blowing down the street, with nothing on it but 37 ... a drop-leaf table had '37' chalked beneath every separate panel. Numbers on telephone poles, phone numbers - all (with a little jiggling) revealed the magic number. I used to joke he was going to get run over by the Number 37 bus! Sadly my story lacks that punchline, for he died of non-37-related causes ... but maybe 37 was the bus he was going to be run over by! Haha! The news that 37 is embedded in our genetic code is the final piece of the puzzle! -------------- SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2014,12:43    Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 11 2014,12:08) Georgi Marinov has a good comment on that thread:     Quote ...Most of the top PhD programs in the sciences do not admit people who already have a PhD, and for a very good reason...  Not sure where that came from. Admission to a PhD program is a fairly flexible process with few strict rules. One of my former graduate students already had a PhD in Electrical Engineering when he applied for grad school in physics. That wasn't an obstacle to his admission to our PhD program, which is in the top twenty in the US. -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout �

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2014,12:50    And here I thought the magic number was 42. Huh.

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2014,14:19    Quote (Soapy Sam @ Aug. 11 2014,10:20) Sadly my story lacks that punchline, for he died of non-37-related causes ... but maybe 37 was the bus he was going to be run over by! Haha! Did he die of 37 non-37-related causes? -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Pages: (527) < ... 40 41 42 43 44 [45] 46 47 48 49 50 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard